Jump to content
 

Level crossing stupidity...


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I don't understand the decision not to prosecute though I suppose "being stupid" is not a crime.  If the initial accident was, as stated, a minor nose to tail bump, the surely both cars were capable of being driven off the crossing before details were exchanged.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Northern Ireland Railways successfully sued the driver of a car that stalled on a level crossing causing a derailment, the writing off of one carriage, damages to train and track and, sadly, one railway passenger fatality and other passenger injuries.  Must have hit the car driver's no claim discount!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

It all depends on whether the drivers had third party cover. Its compulsory here in the UK but might not be in other countries/states.

It really doesn't matter whether the driver has cover or not.

 

The driver would be personally sued for any financial [or otherwise] losses....if the driver has no insurance  to cover said losses, then the driver personally becomes liable. Also liable for a costs awarded against them. [They may find they have Public Liability cover on their home insurance, for example?]

Whether the claimants get the monies the Court awards them is another matter entirely.  Especially if the driver has zero assets?

I suspect such awards may hang around for decades....until the driver concerned forgets, makes some money, then suddenly finds they lose it all?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

I don't understand the decision not to prosecute though I suppose "being stupid" is not a crime.  If the initial accident was, as stated, a minor nose to tail bump, the surely both cars were capable of being driven off the crossing before details were exchanged.

Actually, a revised version of the events has been issued. The reporter apparently based the earlier item, on police information.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/traumatised-driver-had-seconds-to-avoid-pakenham-train-smash-20190716-p527uk.html

Edited by kevinlms
Fat Fingers Disease!
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

It all depends on whether the drivers had third party cover. Its compulsory here in the UK but might not be in other countries/states.

It isn't in Australia. The only compulsory insurance for motor vehicles is for personal injury, various state government schemes.

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Actually, a revised version of the events has been issued. The reporter apparently based the earlier item, on police information.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/traumatised-driver-had-seconds-to-avoid-pakenham-train-smash-20190716-p527uk.html

That makes more sense.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

RAIB report today.

 

This looks a serious near miss with echoes of Hixon:

 

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-11-2019-serious-operational-irregularity-at-bagillt-user-worked-crossing

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d53c9aee5274a42dd9924c7/R112019_190815_Bagillt.pdf


"At around 11:57 hrs on 17 August 2018, a passenger train travelled over Bagillt
user worked crossing with telephones (UWC-T), near Flint, Flintshire, shortly
after a road vehicle weighing 60.5 tonnes had passed over the crossing. Railway
signals had not been set to red to protect the crossing from train movements
before this permission was given. The train, reporting number 1D34, was the
09:53 hrs Manchester Piccadilly to Holyhead service and was travelling at about
75 mph (121 km/h) when it reached the crossing, probably about one minute after
the road vehicle had crossed. A person walking over the crossing to close the
gates behind the vehicle was alarmed to see the approaching train and ran clear
of the crossing."

 

Martin.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

As it says in the RAIB briefing, there seems to have been a potentially severe misinterpretation of the rules and the rule book.  It also mentions NR risk assessments relating to the crossing. 

 

This highlights an issue with risk assessments; if the risk assessed is not the actual risk due to the process being different or being done incorrectly, then the risk assessment is irrelevant. 

 

There should be a Hazard Area Assessment as well, referring to the crossing (rather than it's use) and that may be found lacking if there is found to be any inaccuracy of signage or similar.

 

The question may also be of familiarity breeding contempt.  The road vehicle operators may not consider it a large vehicle whereas the vehicle's progress may match NR's opinion of a large vehicle (any STGO load would constitute a large load, but a large load that falls in the gap of large and slow but not STGO might not).  Apocryphal knowledge suggests it's common and it may be that the crossing is used more than a User Operated Crossing might be expected and by large slow vehicles and that some people at NR know this but expected it to be 'done by the book'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, daveyb said:

............ The question may also be of familiarity breeding contempt.  The road vehicle operators may not consider it a large vehicle whereas the vehicle's progress may match NR's opinion of a large vehicle (any STGO load would constitute a large load, but a large load that falls in the gap of large and slow but not STGO might not).  .............

Looks to me that the Crossing Assistant's assessment of the vehicle was perfectly OK - he estimated time for the baler to cross as 'two minutes, if that' and it crossed in about 28 seconds ( he was rather conservative here )  and the time between the end of his first 'phone call and start of the second, to say the vehicle was clear, was only two minutes twenty seconds ..................... whether two minutes was enough for the signaller to allow is a different matter. ( As it happens, the Crossing Assistant could have been the only casualty - though that's one casualty too many, of course. )

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, daveyb said:

The road vehicle operators may not consider it a large 

 

Just one passing comment, the report says the vehicle was over 60 tons, by anyone's standards that is a large vehicle. Even most HGVs are only 44 tons. Perhaps the operators need to start looking outside their bubble.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

 

Just one passing comment, the report says the vehicle was over 60 tons, by anyone's standards that is a large vehicle. Even most HGVs are only 44 tons. Perhaps the operators need to start looking outside their bubble.

 

Thing is it was pretty much the same as a normal artic just a bit heavier. Probably quite happy travelling at 56mph along with all the other HGV's. Compared to a 120 ton transformer it would not be considered an abnormally large vehicle.  Although a lot of focus has been on the type of vehicle, this was incidental to the main cause which was the signalman was mistaken about how close the train was, and that the crossing was much wider than normal taking extra time to cross, which the signalman had not taken account of.  Had it been a normal 44 tonner, Then the train would still have arrived at the crossing soon enough to constitute a near miss.

Edited by Titan
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

Thing is it was pretty much the same as a normal artic just a bit heavier. Probably quite happy travelling at 56mph along with all the other HGV's. Compared to a 120 ton transformer it would not be considered an abnormally large vehicle.  Although a lot of focus has been on the type of vehicle, this was incidental to the main cause which was the signalman was mistaken about how close the train was, and that the crossing was much wider than normal taking extra time to cross, which the signalman had not taken account of.  Had it been a normal 44 tonner, Then the train would still have arrived at the crossing soon enough to constitute a near miss.

From the photo, the lorry and trailer seemed to be rather longer than normal, as well as heavier, which would have further added to crossing time.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

From the photo, the lorry and trailer seemed to be rather longer than normal, as well as heavier, which would have further added to crossing time.

 

Which is why I made the comment. Whilst the signaller also made assumptions/errors, the lorry was not the same as a normal artic and the operator should have also made that clear. Hopefully all sides will have learned from it, though I suspect only NR will have.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

A problem that may get worse as larger and larger areas are handled by fewer and fewer signallers in remote Operating Centres. Local knowledge ends up being diminished.

 

Jim

York will cover Kings Cross to Edinburgh. I'm sure that they'll know everything that is needed about crossings that carry large or slow loads crossing the railway. :lol:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Richard E said:

York will cover Kings Cross to Edinburgh. I'm sure that they'll know everything that is needed about crossings that carry large or slow loads crossing the railway. :lol:

I presume that your tongue was firmly in your cheek.   In my opinion there is no substitute for local knowledge.

 

Jamie

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
38 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

I presume that your tongue was firmly in your cheek.   In my opinion there is no substitute for local knowledge.

 

Jamie

I would have thought the emoticon was a clue.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Concentration of signalling in fewer locations, each covering an ever larger area, has been going on for a long time ! For example, Motherwell SC, opened in 1974, controlled the WCML from Kirkpatrick, north of Gretna Jc, to Cambuslang, outside Glasgow, 86 route miles, plus the complicated areas around Motherwell and Mossend, with a total of 741 signalled routes. The operational and yes, economic benefits of such methods are huge. It is of course vital however that signalling staff are fully trained and assessed on the area(s) they control, and that features such as LCs with abnormal traffic are recognised and briefed to all concerned. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Richard E said:

York will cover Kings Cross to Edinburgh. I'm sure that they'll know everything that is needed about crossings that carry large or slow loads crossing the railway. :lol:

 

Marshall Meadows (the LNE/Scotland Route boundary) to Edinburgh is controlled from Edinburgh SC and that is unlikely to change. Plus, it might be the case that in such a large SC as York Signallers will not cover every Workstation. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Australian idiots.

 

https://www.thesenior.com.au/story/6332540/watch-the-dangerous-double-cross-in-front-of-two-trains/

 

Other incidents have links within the article.

Runners/joggers are second only to cyclists

for ignoring rules of the road, other users etc.

Ok, I'm generalizing i know but there are 

offenders in both groups.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...